Related

Comments

Point is people, how can we call out people like Rose so that he becomes too ashamed to repeat?

Yes I appreciate that maladapted creatures (not evolved beyond stone age cognitive processes) like Rose have no sense of shame or a conscience. The comments thread at the base of that article is depressing reading and notable by all the sensible and informed comments being voted down to the bottom by the ignoratti. These ignoratti need a kick up the fundament too.

Never in the field of human history will so many be afflicted because of the lumpish actions of so few. The few being those bankrolling this type of propaganda.

Denial isn’t just for the science. It’s of everyone who criticises them.

Look to the fundie mantra of how anything and everything is “proof” of their persecution. This not only allows them to ignore the criticism but also allows them to “prove” to themselves they must be on to something.

Patrick ‘CO2 is good for plants’ Michaels has produced more misleading smoke screens to divert the attentions of, mainly, US politicians from the realities of climate change as is currently being pointed out at Rabett Run and Climate Denial Crock of the Week blogs.

Michaels’ ally Chip Knappenberger seems incensed that people at Skeptical Science should cast due doubt on the motives of these prime examples of devious denialists.

Knappenbegers’ attempts at excuses can be found here and more especially here .

What thin skins these creatures have who seem so eager to sling insults at others. And yes Knappenberger and Michaels, distorting the work of other scientists is insulting in the extreme and you deserve every condemnation heaped upon you.

Chip and Pat you are also insulting assaulting the world and all other organisms that inhabit it.

Point is people, how can we call out people like Rose so that he becomes too ashamed to repeat?

I have little faith in the process but Leo Hickman has tweeted that 3 complaints have been submitted to the UK Press Complaints Commission. Given that the article only appeared 2 days ago there will likely be more. The usual get-out-of-jail-free card when climate change denial is published in the UK press is that it is an opinion piece. I can’t see anything – at least in the web version – to indicate it is an opinion piece and (amazingly) it was published under science.

Most likely outcome is the Fail will publish a small clarification which the PCC will deem as sufficient remedial action.

Thought you & the gang might appreciate what Tom Harris is up to these days.

“It is misleading for IANVS to write concerning my article on the serious flaws in the climate science poll last week, “And that from the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), another climate change denier PR org… etc.”

Can’t be fun being so completely out of fashion. 😉 Why not give the blogg a more suitable name? Desertoid perhaps? Could it be that people now understand that there isn’t a well funded right wing conspiracy working against climate science and that there is no one that wants to destroy mother earth?

Well, the insistence on using smilies is definitely a part of the tactic of passive aggressive and nothing to do with narcissism.

It may be that the passive aggressive is more likely to be narcissistic, since they do not want any strong proof for or against their words since that would crack their self-image, hence it is better to be a passive aggressive and let fake victimhood allow you to wave away criticism with “Oh, you’re being a bully, so you MUST be wrong on this!”.

I would not recommend following Loon Pond’s link to the Lomborg piece like I did :). Summary: after alot of words on GM foods means that the Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2012 report is thus flawed and thus investing in a clean energy future will mean poor people die by burning dung.

Well, it seems after the first three months of operation that those opposed to pricing carbon will be choking on humble pie. There has been a notable drop in carbon emissions in Australia with the introduction of the price:

Interestingly, it’s apparent that consumers started their reduction in power use just prior to the price engaging, showing that people are indeed motivated by the true cost of goods and services when those costs are actually passed on, and more interestingly the economy hasn’t yet collapsed from the price. In my own circle, my friends’ and relatives’ bills haven’t increased at a rate any greater than in previous periods, and they’ve had the offset to sweeten the fact that most are actually quite energy efficient.

What’s worrying some of them though is that further costs of infrastructure repair seem to be looming. They’re as nervous as Barney Stinson on Slapsgiving…

Sadly, the oblivious morons that hang around here are a reliable guide that such mentalities are incapable of comprehending – let alone acknowledging – error. They’ ll merely double-down on bullshit.

The ever-increasing tension between the epistemic-bubble of the gloating idiots’ wrongheaded ‘reality’ and actual reality significantly diminishes any appeal they may still have to those who want to engage with the world as it really is, however.

Olaus, you’re the little fat sneering kid in the class that just won’t shut up and thinks his farts are hilarious. You keep claiming you’re going away – no-one would miss you if you did, so do it.

Ah, poor old Alan – now the ‘cyber-bullies’ have made him have to take facts into account, thus changing the habits of a lifetime. What an outrageous blow to Free Speech™, or, remembering his starring role in Cash-For-Comment, Fee Speech.

No doubt the narcissistic little thug will manage to feel genuinely sorry for himself; the rest of us may well see it as too-little, too-late.

In his Thursday ‘Advertiser’ column (Page 24, “Pause for warming effect” inset box 2012 October 18th) Andrew Bolt claimed that new data show a lack of warming over the past 16 years. Mr Bolt is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts – empirical observed evidence collected by NASA NOAA and the CSIRO among others flatly contradicts this false claim. For example, search the NASA website and anyone can find reference to the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record tying with 2005 and last year was globally the hottest recorded La Nina cycle year. This year as many know but Mr Bolt apparently missed saw the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record, another key indicator of the reality of our current artificially induced planetary overheating. Bolt’s piece was factually inaccurate and highly misleading and 98%. of qualified climatologists, individuals who have spent decades studying and working on understanding the facts and processes and nature of Earth’s climate are agreed that Global Overheating is real and a serious concern. I strongly believe it is overdue that we listened to those climatologists who actually know what they’re talking about on this topic not ideologically blinkered polemicists and request the Advertiser please consider this in future and ideally both issues a correction and runs a counter-piece by a reputable climatologist preferably in Mr Bolt’s place.

Best regards :

(My details – ed.)

*****

In response to Andrew Bolt’s extraordinarily wrong claim in a recent column and thought folks here may like to know / respond similarly / provide feedback?

Yes, I notice Olaus consistently comes back here with his witless wisdom and links to right wing anti-environmental blogs in tow. He clearly reads everything said on Deltoid, and, like the other clowns who deny AGW, seems to think that his vacuous quips actually resonate on an intellectual level with some readers here.

Mesage for Olaus: They don’t. Well, with a caveat: they do but only with those (like you) whose political biases trump scientific facts. You clearly don’t read the primary literature, a point I have made a million timers, but instead saunter your way through the contrarian blogs because these bolster your own retarded beliefs. You claim – whilst refusing to read any of the evidence provided and there is a helluva lot of it out there – that polluting industries and those with vested interests in denial invest huge sums of money to influence public policy on the issue of climate change. This is what raises a red flag for me – I have recommended numerous books and other sources of information but you clearly refuse to read them. And on this platform of ignorance you then deride comments about a well-funded industry of denial. Next thing you’ll tell me is that there’s no proof that dozens of corporations fund political candidates to the tunes of billions of dollars in the United States. Of course, they do, but so long as you keep a paper bag over your head, you can forever claim that its a lie.

Get a life, dopey. If you aren’t willing to read anything a scintilla of a millimeter outside of the box you’ve constructed for yourself, then don’t expect people to try and engage with you in some form of meaningful discussion.

Yeah the “This is what 95% certainty looks like in climate science”, well, exactly. Thought about a discussion we had on another thread about that very point, where is he these days by the way? 😉

As for “yourself [jeff] not letting your conspiracies and intolerant personality take the better of you?” Your asking him to stop being jeff!. Too far gone I think to consider a personality transplant at this late stage.

Also, for those of you who follow NH sea ice extent, and attach great significance to records etc, seems to be bouncing back quite nicely after the summer low!

No, I don’t ‘make up facts’ – I do what any person should do when challenged: look for the evidence themself. You belittle statements referring to the anti-environmental slush fund on the basis of your own inherent biases, and then, in tried and trusted contrarian fashion, when this is exposed go after the messenger. There’s piles of evidence that climate change – along with a suite of other other environmental threats – are part of an emormolusly well funded industryof denial. Sharon Beder, Andy Rowell, Dave Helvarg, Sheldon Rampton and many others have done the maths. You refuse to read them. That’s your problem. You don’t want to read them and the other relevant literature because it will shatter your world view. Next thing you’ll say is that the tobacco industry didn’t invest millions to downplay the effects of smoking on human health. Why? Because you didn’t read anything about it. Therefore it didn’t happen. Great strategy that, eh?

I take your bemused smears with a piunch of salt, on the simple basis that (and this is what you really hate) I am a respected scientist and am, certainly wsell known in my field of endeavor. Dorks like you also routinely ridiclue Paul Ehlrich, Michael Mann, Ed Wilson, Peter Raven, Tom Lovejoy, anf other scientists who have made an impact.

Its funny how clowns like you and GSW claim that Deltoid is dead but appear to hover around here like vultures and check the threads almost constantly. Do you guys actually have lives? Or are you sad deniers stuck in your own timke warps?

Can’t speak for Olaus, but I come back here every now and then for entertainment purposes- You guys defending the indefensible, and seeing “Portents of Doom” in every new piece of “trivia de jour”. Best of all, it’s free! sort of a Conspiracy theory, Comedy Channel combo!

Until you read something apart from WUWT and Joanne Nova (is this it?!), then why discuss anything with you? Same goes for your sidekicks.

John Mashey was correct when he said that deniers hate scientists. They really do. Especially those with some pedigree. The knives come out when scientists stand up to those who have no scientific background at all. The venal hatred. The deniers are left with snarky remarks suggesting that the scientists are ‘too far gone’ (GSW) and hence ignored. This coming from a person who made a number of profoundly error ridden comments about the status of amphibians and polar bear demographics, topics of which he clearly knows nothing. I countered this nonsense, and out come the knives. Why?

Humiliation. GSW, who has no background in the life sciences, expects his comments to be taken literally. No exceptions. I did this, and it must have hurt. No attempt was made to counter my arguments because he couldn’t. So what was left? AHA! Smears. Ridicule.

You deniers are so predictable. I’ve been encountering you since my postdoctoal days back in Wisconsin in the 1990s, and nothing has changed. On one website back then some contrarian clown claimed the world could easily sustain a population of one trillion people. When I countered this with arguments that it was absurd, out came the knives. The smears. The insults. Another person suggested that humans had evolved beyond any dependence on biodiversity. Again I responded with science – and again out came the smears and insults.

GSW, Olaus and Co. are par for the course. Its boring really, because its so easy to humiliate their lack of knowledge, so they have to resort to poems and other forms of attack to soothe their souls.

Good for you. I do the same for the sites you tend to find succor in – comedy sites like Nova’s, WUWT, Bishop’s Hill etc. where there isn’t a statured scientist in sight. Just a lot of politically camouflaged mumbo-jumbo. Its been a terrible year for climate change deniers, what with the record-extending heat wave across the US and the shocking minimum in Arctic ice cover. I understand how you right wing free market absolutists need all of the comfort you can get as humans continue to push our planetary life support systems towards the brink.

Don’t put words in my mouth. Your non-sequiters aren’t funny except to you and a few hangers on. You know exactly what I mean. If you care about the environment, then your version isclearly ‘slacktivist’. Look it up. Perhaps too much for your muddled Swedish brain.

The only bones you throw in our direction are insults. Glad you like my ‘arm-candy’ though. Ity goes with playing death metal. I need to blast away on my BC Rich after a day being exposed to your kinds of insidious logic.

And there you have it, laid out in plain site. For all the voluminous text avalanches of blog piffle from the aggregated ranks of the WattsNovaMontford axis, you get an ‘understanding’ of the issue with all the depth of the gold plating on a fairground bauble.

Deniers don’t actually need to be ‘attacked’, they’re more than capable of proclaiming their own depths of stupid without any assistance.

“[S]ome observers” were preempted about two months ago by scientific commentators with a genuine understanding of physics, and who pointed out the nature of seasonal re-icing from a record low baseline with the current combination of climatic forcings.

For your future reference, future record low summer Arctic ice parameters are likely to be followed by more record or near-record re-icings. Even a pithed toad could understand why, so it will be entertaining to see whether you can explain it to the thread.

The person who did the calculations for the “fastest refreeze since records began” doesn’t know how to calculate percent increase. They say that an increase of 2.62409 million km^2 over an initial value of 3.36855 million km^2 at the minimum amounts to a 43.8% increase. Read that again. The actual increase is about 78% over the minimum, not 43.8%. They can’t even do 5th grade maths.

That’s an understatement…. the so-called recovery doesn’t take into account how thick the new (or old) ice is, or that the biggest concern was that the oldest ice has been lost at remarkably rapid rates.

But we have to accept the fact that climate change deniers are a metaphor for the ice loss in the Arctic: they will deny, deny, deny and then deny some more as their arguments melt all around them. The only time they will acknowledge that they’ve been wrong all along is at the very last minute, as the water goes over their heads (cue Robert DeNiro as Max Cady in the remake of Cape Fear). Its stunning how they have distorted, spun, weaved, twisted, and dodged the science in their desperate attempts to downplay the quite stunning and frightening rate of summer ice loss in the Arctic. The time scale we are talking about for this event is completely and utterly shocking. Yet the deniers pontificate as if its nothing exceptional.This lot of sordid idiots would have probably though that the impact of the asteroid that brought about the demise of the dinosaurs was nothing exceptional. I’m sure most of them don’t consider the loss of 50% of the world’s tropical wet forestsin the past 100 years to be that serious either. Anything to downplay the human footprint.

Not only does winter become an eternal suprise to them every year, but they also forget that they harp on about how the peer reviewed papers are no good for finding “the truth” about AGW because anything “supporting the cause” is accepted, as evidenced by them crowing about a retraction of a paper that agrees that AGW is real and a problem.

This, of course, is no evidence that their claim about peer review is wrong.

Some people assign zero credibility to the peer-reviewed literature, and 100% credibility to other things, then pile more on top of unsupported claims. For example, see <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943/&quot;?We have to get rid of the MWP for the propagation and enhancement of David Deming’s claim from my favorite dog astrology journal, which found its way into Andrew Montford’s book.

People may also peruse Brian Sussman’s interview with Deming, revealing Sussman’s expertise in explaining that boreholes are holes in trees for tree-ring studies.

The publication of the virtually unchanged domestic economic forecasts will further pressure Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who has already been asked to explain why his predictions of ”almost unimaginable” inflation and job losses resulting from the carbon tax have not materialised.

I have been looking into William Ruddiman’s work starting with ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum’. I do wish sources were cited more comprehensibly, the bibliography is thin and the Index leaves much to be desired – but that latter is a common feature of books from the Princeton UP as titles by David Archer, Wallace Broecker and Richard Alley are similarly short. All still worth reading though.

So having had a search around I am finding bits from or associated with Ruddiman including his 2001 paper, with Thomson, and the 2003 and 2005 follow ups. I am now trying to track down the papers that, at first, seemed to undermine his thesis.

I have come across articles at RealClimate and also this comment of yours at Skeptical Science, but not under its original article sadly:

JohnMashey@10,

I’m not interested in MWP hypothesis by Ruddiman. I’m interested in another one Ruddiman’s famous for: Tibet and Himalayan uplift speeding up igneous rock weathering and creating the late Cenozoic cooling.

Did you find anything to assist you here?

Now I am still progressing through ‘Golden Holocaust’, and wonder if you are at all interested in the POV of a once long term smoker, one time RN with Duty Frees, who chose to smoke unfiltered by choice – now I know my instincts were spot on except for the not quitting bit until almost too late.

As an aside Proctor makes an excellent point about the role of those, such as statisticians and academics who suffer little professional damage from colleagues and almas and how this should change. This may bear quoting at some time in some post somewhere for it has a direct bearing on how the climate change perception is being twisted by some in public forums who should know and behave better.

“We used to say we had a traditional flood season in winter – now often it’s in summer. This is an integrated problem – there’s no one thing that’s going to solve it. The situation is changing all the time.”

But scientists present from the Met Office and CEH said not much could be read into the weird weather. Terry Marsh from CEH said: “Rainfall charts show no compelling long-term trend – the annual precipitation table shows lots of variability.”

Sarah Jackson from the Met Office confirmed that it did not discern any pattern that suggested Man-made climate change was at play in UK rainfall – although if temperatures rise as projected in future, that would lead to warmer air being able to carry more moisture to fall as rain.

She said that this year’s conditions were partly caused by a move to a negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which would be likely to lead to more frequent cold, drier winters – like the 1960s – and also wetter summers for 10-20 years.

We can wait for 30ish years and see if it’s a climate rather than transient weather signal.

We could then wait a few more years to see if that climate persists.

Or we could look at rainfall events around the whole globe over the last 10-15 years and see if there’s a detectable change in precipitation patterns now. Even then, we couldn’t be certain that any change thus detected would certainly persist along that trajectory.

But sensible people would look at rising sea levels and say regardless of whether it persists at this rate or precipitation becomes more or less variable, we’d need to find ways our rivers and stormwater systems could be adjusted to ameliorate the impact on infrastructure.

You’re feeling a little unwell. Your stools are sloppy and you’re going to the toilet more often than usual today. Next day too. And the third day.

But this is entirely possible given the varied and unusual diet of humans.

But do you wait until you see more extreme symptoms (blood in the water, coughing, dehydration and an inability to eat) before going to the doctor, or do you go early on?

And if the doctor says “This could be dysentry” do you deny it all and proclaim that you are clean and run a clean home and CANNOT EVER catch dysentry, point to the symptoms that haven’t turned up yet (e.g. “Death”) and say this PROVES it isn’t dysentry and that you don’t need this expensive medical treatment for a disease “produced” by something you can’t see and makes up a miniscule fraction of your body weight?

The problem is selfish people don’t see it happening to them, therefore they refuse to act because it will cost them (money, prestige, comfort or even pride), but boy will they scream loud when they get hit, demanding OTHERS pay for their disaster.

New Orleans claimed disaster. Ask Pakistan about floods. That was barely a damp floor. But still claimed a “DISASTER!”.

B [Harrabin] – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

[Jones] Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Of course the denialosphere by not understanding the significance of a ‘95% significance level’ twisted this, and is still doing so as seen with the latest David Rose nonsense, to make the ignoratti believe that there had therefore been no warming over the previous 15 years. This is bad enough but totally ignores the heat capacity of other elements of the climate system especially the oceans. Latent heat not being within the conceptual framework of most.

When it comes to other not well appreciated factors where humans could have induced the MCO (Medieval Climate Optimum) and the LIA (Little Ice Age), both of which have varied periods attributed to them depending on study and location covered, then take up William Ruddiman as pointed to in my October 20, 2012 post above.

As somebody as interested in history as science I had long pondered the probable impact of human activities as agriculture and the making of bronze and then iron spread, all activities requiring the cutting of much timber, along with a steadily rising population. That there was a great plague during medieval times did not escape me and I consider that Ruddiman has some strong points by pointing out that the decimation of large communities would have allowed a grow back of forest with the resultant draw down of CO2 causing temperatures to fall.

The difference between then and now is of course that large populations and the gigantic size of crop-lands, livestock holdings and industry to support our ever increasing, and mostly unnecessary, consumption will have more widespread effects as we are now seeing.

The difficulty with climate studies and global warming is that meteorology is only one facet of the bigger picture and many specialists have too narrow a focus.

William Ruddiman in the book cited above makes the excellent point that scientists should ‘give themselves time to think’ and to thoughtfully study more recent papers from scientific disciplines other that in which the scientist is directly involved in. It is well know that such cross-disciplinary thinking often allows a new perspective which leads to an advance in the fund of human knowledge.

Although some have said that the timber felled for agricultural purposes, heating and cooking outweighs that used for construction, including ships, by about ten to one I do wonder about the veracity of that the ships factor given my study of maritime history and the shear scale of tree felling not just of the deciduous hardwoods for structural timbers but of the spruce and pines for masts and for making tar.

The associated consumption of timber for charcoal production in the casting of iron cannon, and then the forging of structural components to eke out the ever shrinking supply of hardwoods is another factor.

Sadly, as I observe frequently these days, one can lead a horse to water but one can not make it drink.

On the matter of deforestation I was recently researching carbon fuels derived from wood, and found that the extent of deforestation for tar, charcoal and wood gas production is much under-recognised. In fact Finland’s entire forest cover appears to be less than 300 years old, reflecting the stupendous deforestation resulting from tar manufacture prior to modern coal and oil use. Similar scales of deforestation occurred across Europe, although perhaps not to the efficiency of removal as occurred in Finland.

Notice again how Olaus illustrates his sources for science: generally 100% from denial blogs or right wing media sources. His latest is from a site that should be called the ‘nobrainszone’. Another contrarian blog run by another scientifically illiterate pundit with a libertatrian axe to grind.

Methinks Olaus spends too much of his time searching through the internet from climate change denial blogs, then proundly cutting-and-pasting their gibberish here.

Olaus: ever hear of the primary literature? Ever read any of the primary literature? Ever visit the Web of Science search engine and login there? Or are we consigned to your witless non-wisdom gleaned from scientifically illiterate blogs? I recall your fawning admiration of Jonas being partly based on the idea that he allegedly discussed the science. Really? How would you know if you don’t read any of the primary literature? Primary in your view must mean WUTW, Bishop’s Hill, Notrickszone, CA, Junk Science, Climate Depot Joanne Nova and other contrarian sites run by politically distorted scribes.

“I think a paraphrase of the first comment in “Jonas thread” is in order: “Deltoid, the place were climate scare trolls are dead”. Only handful staggering zombies left (not right?) in this dungeon of conspiracies and hatred. – Olaus Petri

“Can’t be fun being so completely out of fashion. Why not give the blogg a more suitable name? Desertoid perhaps?” – Olaus Petri

Meh, I like the name just as it is and check it fairly regularly tho’ generally lurking or seeing if Tim Lambert has posted something new and interesting. Time is, sadly, often a problematic factor for my participation here.

“Could it be that people now understand that there isn’t a well funded right wing conspiracy working against climate science.” – Olaus Petri

Really? Guess you never heard of the Koch brothers, the Murdoch media or the Heartland Institute then?

“..and that there is no one that wants to destroy mother earth? Take care!” – Olaus Petri

You don’t have to believe in some hippy “Mother Earth” so much as just understand the reality and the implications it has for the future – not just for children and later generations but even for how things will develop over our own lifetimes.

Planet Earth will survive for aeons to come. Us humans and the creatures and plants around us, well, we might all be in for a very bad time and a situation that keeps getting worse not better.

“Lord Monckton also denounced attempts to silence and discredit him pointing to “a lavishly funded campaign in this respect that cost at least a quarter of a million dollars.”

After obtaining up to two and a half million hits with a You Tube video of one of his most forceful denouncements of the more ‘sinister’ agenda of the environmental lobby, Lord Monckton said two dozen pages of gibberish under the tag – Monckton video – had been uploaded with search engines having been paid huge sums of money to advance them to the top of the rankings in order to bury his message.”http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=26413

Thanks Bernard J. That info on tar or rather pitch tar and charcoal harvesting is most interesting. After all it was for sources such as those from Finland that the Royal Navy assaulted Copenhagen (the irony) to ensure the supply of essential naval materials (masts and rigging) when Napoleon Bonaparte instituted the Continental System of trade embargo aimed at Britain. There was also a ‘scuffle’ around Riga.

As I may have mentioned, I am very into maritime history, being ex RN – FAA) and have sources describing the naval policy and shipbuilding from Elizabethan times. There is some revealing narrative in some of these that cover the 17th Century (1600s for the OPs of the world) on the effect of temperature swings during that period which some sources include in the LIA.

The work of William Ruddiman adds perspective on this issue too, especially as this period contains the very dry and hot period leading up to the Great Fire of London and the plague that preceded it. Was that just an indication of the increased fluctuations of a system under stress.

Now engineers should know a thing or too about such phenomenon too – ever tuned a carburettor and engine timing?

I did spot your post at SkS and spotted the Tamino post on Rose late last night, I thought that he had not bothered to enter the fray on this one but his input is, as ever, most enlightening. So, I’ll toddle over there now and catch up.

Potholer also has contributed one of his brilliant debunks.

BTW Dana at SkS is promising another follow up on the David Rose BS repeat later this week.

Now, as indicated in the article, this feature could be the route for rapid glacier movement and also inlet of warmer oceanic waters which would both speed up considerably the loss of Antarctic ice mass. Tamino had one Oh Shit moment recently, could this be another?

You can explore the contours of the planet, and much more, using this tool: GeoMapApp but it looks like some updating will be required before long.

Well, I’m not surprised that ‘Chek’ was ‘disappeared’ for describing the ‘Her Majesty’s Met Office’ as ‘second-rate shit’, or words to that effect, but all I did was quote them and I got the blue-pencil treatment, too! I am not amused!

Neither can El Duffer keep track of which thread he’s previously commented on. What a case, inept AND stupid.
I expect he can’t reference his “quotes” as requested there either, hence the simultaneous self-assumed victimisation and bravado here.

I’m quite disturbed by the idea of Duffo’s ‘historical talks’.
If he (and there’s no reason to think otherwise) has the same disdain for primary sources in preparing them as he displays for climate science, who the hell informs his little soirées and their inevitable departures from reality?
Stormfront, Kellog’s Cornflakes and David Icke?
Actually, I woudn’t be that surprised.

Ah, Chek, there you are, how nice to see you again. I meant to ask if you had seen any sun spots recently, only they’re in short supply and we need all we can get otherwise we’re going to freeze our wotsits off for the next 30 years. See, that 16 year levelling off might well be the precursor to something serious – and cold!

Dufferboy, the reason you make your nonsensical projections of the future is because you can’t explain the past (including this year’s record arctic melt which you – of course -idiotically ascribe to ‘flatlining temperatures’). The past remember, includes up to 30 second ago. Which doesn’t auger well for your understanding of history, given your weakness and preference for highly suspect sources.

And no claim nor evidence is presented regarding how much the carbon price was responsible for the price rise – nor any evidence or analysis of changes in power usage and emissions levels, let alone any understanding of what the carbon price is supposed to do to gas and electricity prices.

Barry Bickmore, Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young University has issued a challenge to Lord Monckton over his remarks in Gibraltar. On his Blog Professor Bickmore states in a letter to Lord Monckton “I noticed a number of articles in The Gibraltar Chronicle about your most recent attempts to engage Al Gore in a debate about climate change, and I agree that you deserve an answer, although not necessarily from Gore.

In response, I would like to renew my challenge to debate you about climate change in an online, written format, in which we have time to check our opponent’s sources. I was never given a satisfactory answer as to why you declined the first time, but I am always willing to give you another chance.”

“Should you accept the challenge, I would be happy to host the debate on my blog, Climate Asylum (http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/ ), or on another site that we could mutually agree upon,” he says.

“I will certainly understand if you consider me too unimportant a figure to debate. After all, I’m sure that’s what Al Gore thinks of you. But before you decide, consider how you stated your challenge to Al Gore back in 2009. ‘I want you to face me in a debate about global warming, and if you don’t dare, I want you to remain silent about that subject forever, from now on’,” says Professor Bickmore.